Mischna
Mischna

Talmud zu Ketubot 2:2

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיךָ הָיְתָה וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, שֶׁהוּא נֶאֱמָן, שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אָבִיו וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן:

Und R. Yehoshua räumt ein, wenn man zu seinem Nachbarn sagt: Dieses Feld gehörte Ihrem Vater, und ich habe es ihm gekauft, glaubt man, denn "der Mund, der verbietet, ist der Mund, der es erlaubt". [Obwohl oben im ersten Kapitel zu "Wenn sie sagte: 'Nachdem Sie mich verlobt haben, wurde ich gezwungen'", unterscheidet sich R. Yehoshua von R. Gamliel und sagt, dass die Frau nicht daran glaubt (obwohl) sie verbietet sich also dem Priestertum, als sie hätte sagen können: Ich bin ein Mukkath etz und wurde zum Priestertum zugelassen—Dies ist in einem Fall von "verboten" oder "erlaubt" der Fall, dh dem Priestertum verboten oder erlaubt zu sein. In diesem Fall unterscheidet sich R. Yehoshua von R. Gamliel und sagt, dass sie nicht mit einem Miggo geglaubt wird ("Ich hätte sagen können, etc."); aber hier, wo es keine Frage von Verbotenem oder Erlaubtem gibt, sondern (eher eine Frage von) Geldverlust, wie wenn man zu seinem Nachbarn sagt: "Dieses Feld gehörte deinem Vater und ich habe es von ihm gekauft", räumt R. Yehoshua ein R. Gamliel, dass er in einem solchen Fall mit einem Miggo geglaubt wird, nachdem er sagen konnte: "Es ist meins", so dass er glaubt, wenn er sagt: "Es war dein Vater, und ich habe es von ihm gekauft" .] Und wenn es Zeugen gibt, dass es seines Vaters war, und er sagt: Ich habe es von ihm gekauft, wird ihm nicht geglaubt. [Die Gemara erklärt, dass diese Mischna von einem Fall spricht, in dem er (der Besitzer des Feldes) nur zwei Jahre vor (dh zu Lebzeiten) des Vaters und ein Jahr vor dem Sohn davon gegessen hat. Die Mischna bestätigt uns, dass das Jahr, in dem er vor dem Sohn gegessen hat, nicht zu der Summe der Jahre der Chazaka gehört, da die drei Jahre der Chazaka (Besitz) zu Lebzeiten des Vaters noch nicht abgeschlossen waren.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

HALAKHAH: “A woman went with her husband,” etc. Just as you say, 3Mishnah Ketubot 2:4. This belongs to a series of statements illustrating the principle that “the mouth that prohibits is the mouth that permits”. If nobody at that place knew that she had been married before, then if she asserts that she was married she forbids herself for every other male. If then she qualifies the statement that now she is no longer married because she is divorced, her testimony must be accepted since if one believes her that she was married one must believe her that she is divorced; if one does not believe her that she was married, one does not have to believe her that she is divorced but it makes no difference since as an unmarried woman she can contract marriage. But if there were witnesses who could testify that she was married, she has to prove her case by documents or witnesses if she wants to remarry as a divorcee.“if there are witnesses that she is a married woman and she says, I was divorced, she is not trustworthy;” would I say it is the same here? There is a difference for witnesses of death since if he comes he disproves [the testimony]4But if the husband comes and claims that he did not divorce her, it is his word against hers; she is not automatically proven to be a liar.. Then she should be trustworthy to say: “my levir died”! That is impossible since we have stated5Mishnah 15:10. There is no relaxation of standards of proof before a court except in the case of testimony about a husband’s death.: “A woman is not trustworthy if she says ‘my levir died’ to remarry, or ‘my sister died’ to enter her house6To marry her brother-in-law..” Rebbi Abba said, she is trustworthy for her husband whom she married out of her free will; she is not trustworthy about her levir on whom she was thrown against her will. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, think of it, then she should not be trustworthy if she was forced to marry him7If she was married off by her father while she was underage. There is no mention in the Mishnah of a restriction on women marrying on their own. No answer is given to the question.!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

MISHNAH: He who stole according to the testimony of two people21To recover stolen property is a civil matter and is judged according to civil law. But for the owners to collect double, quadruple, or quintuple restitution requires a criminal conviction of the thief which can be based only on the testimony of at least two eye witnesses to the act. and slaughtered or sold according to their testimony or the testimony of two others, has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and sold on the Sabbath22This is forbidden but in itself is not a capital crime which would preempt the imposition of a fine. But if he slaughtered on the Sabbath he committed a capital crime and could not be sentenced to a fine; cf. Chapter 6, Note 102., stole and sold to pagan worship23As long as he does not himself participate in pagan worship, no capital crime has been committed., stole and slaughtered on the Day of Atonement24The punishment for this deadly sin is left to Heaven, not the human court., stole from his father, slaughtered, or sold, and then his father died,25Even though he is an heir, he has to pay to his co-heirs their share in the fine payable to the estate. stole, slaughtered, and then dedicated it to the Temple26Since he already was subject to the fine when he dedicated, the dedication cannot erase the liability., has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. He who stole and slaughtered for medical purposes or for the dogs, he who slaughtered and it turned out torn27On inspection the animal was found to be sick and the meat unfit for human consumption., he who slaughtered a profane animal in the Temple courtyard28The slaughtered animal is forbidden for any use., has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Simeon frees from liability in these two cases29He holds that slaughter which does not prepare meat for human consumption technically is called “killing” rather than “slaughter” and is not covered by the rule of Ex. 21:37..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Vorheriger VersGanzes KapitelNächster Vers